Chuck Baldwin: Political Correctness: Tyranny of Mind

Chuck Baldwin, the 2004 vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, posted the following column today on Chuck Baldwin Live.

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated September 23, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” By any definition that Jefferson could have envisioned, today’s political correctness can only be regarded as “tyranny over the mind of man.” Forget freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of privacy, political correctness demands that we don’t even have freedom of thought or opinion.

If one does not have the freedom to live in good conscience with his own sense of morality, he or she is indeed the most enslaved of creatures. Listen to Jefferson again, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Forcing men to pay taxes “for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors” is indeed sinful and tyrannical enough. But to compel a man to actively PARTICIPATE in ideas he disbelieves and abhors is even more so. And, that, my friends, is exactly what modern political correctness forces us to do–or at least tries to force us to do. Political correctness attempts to strip us of our own sense of right and wrong. It is not only tyranny of conduct and behavior; it is tyranny of the mind and heart.

For example, if someone says something critical of Israel, they are labeled “anti-Semitic.” If they say something critical of the homosexual lifestyle, they are labeled “anti-gay.” If they say something critical of the practices and policies of our politicians, they are labeled “anti-government.” And if they say something critical of Roman theology, they are labeled “anti-Catholic.”

There are only two things that it is politically correct to be “anti” about: it is perfectly acceptable to be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.” Not only is it politically correct to be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim,” it is all but REQUIRED that one be “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.” One risks personal friendship and professional employment if he or she is NOT “anti-Christian” or “anti-Muslim.”

For the record, I am none of the above. I am not anti-Semitic; I am not anti-gay; I am not anti-government; I am not anti-Catholic; I am not anti-Christian; and I am not anti-Muslim. About the only thing I am “anti” is this: I am “anti-TYRANNY.”

And tyranny can come in many shapes and forms. There are tyrannical Jews, tyrannical homosexuals, tyrannical politicians, tyrannical Catholics, tyrannical Muslims, and tyrannical Christians. Because there are those from any of the above groups who are tyrannical doesn’t mean that EVERYONE in those groups is tyrannical. When I resist the ACT of tyranny by someone–or a group of someones–of a certain label doesn’t mean I am “anti” everyone who wears that same label.

But I absolutely will not be intimidated by name-calling when I resist what is obviously an act of tyranny, regardless of the label the tyrant wraps himself in.

To illustrate: I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does NOT mean I am against homosexuals having the same civil rights as everyone else, because I believe that ALL Americans enjoy the same protections under the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, all Americans have the right to enter into civil contracts with one another. But civil union is NOT the same as Holy Matrimony, which can be–and has been–defined ONLY by our Creator. Marriage is defined by both divine and Natural Law.

Any attempt to force me to participate in a so-called “marriage” between same sex couples violates my moral conscience and is, by definition, an act of tyranny. And by Nature, I cannot submit to such an act. I cannot and will not.

I wonder what all of the good Romans 13 pastors across America are going to do as civil authorities attempt to force them to marry same sex couples. This has already happened in one Idaho city. The city of Coeur d’Alene is threatening to incarcerate and heavily fine ministers and others who refuse to officiate over the marriage ceremonies of same sex couples. And as homosexual marriage becomes more and more vogue, Christian ministers across the country are going to be forced to come face to face with their own religious convictions–something many of them have not done for quite a spell. What will they do?

We know what many, if not most, of them will do. They will comply. They are like the pastors of Nazi Germany who taught their flocks to obey the government no matter what and who justified their cowardice and heresy with the misinterpretation of Romans 13. This is the same misinterpretation of that chapter that pastors are regurgitating today.

I highly encourage every reader who attends church to make a point of asking your pastor this Sunday what he will do when the civil authorities of his city or State demand that he marry same sex couples, because this demand is surely coming. Of course, how the pastor responds will then collapse a heavy weight of responsibility on the shoulders of parishioners won’t it (which is why many Christians will simply not bother to even broach the topic with their pastor)?

Do you see how political correctness has become tyrannical? Political correctness demands that we accept a Police State in the name of the “war on terror.” Political correctness demands that we say NOTHING critical of the state of Israel, even when it attacks a U.S. naval vessel and kills dozens of American sailors and Marines. Political correctness demands that we fight unconstitutional wars of aggression against Muslim people who have committed NO act of aggression against us. Political correctness demands that we dare not criticize neocon foreign policy in Washington, D.C. Political correctness demands that Christianity be held up to every form of ridicule and mockery. And now political correctness demands that people violate their own deeply-held religious and moral convictions. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of America’s founders must be turning over in their graves.

Concerning marriage specifically, in my opinion the state has absolutely no authority or responsibility defining, regulating, or controlling marriage. The state had little or no authority regarding marriage until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For the church to allow itself be joined to the state is the unholiest of unions.

This latest attempt of civil authorities to define and regulate marriage should serve notice to everyone, especially Christians, that it is probably time to completely abandon civil marriages altogether and take it back to the individuals, families, and churches, where it rightly has always belonged.

Political correctness is not merely an expression of opinion: it is the denial of anyone else to hold a differing opinion–or even personally-held moral and religious convictions. It is exactly what Thomas Jefferson detested and personally opposed: it is “tyranny over the mind of man.”

92 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: Political Correctness: Tyranny of Mind

  1. Dave Terry

    CB; > ” And if they say something critical of Roman theology, they are labeled “anti-Catholic.”

    1. Roman theology has NOTHING in common with Catholicism.
    2. Catechisms are not inherently Catholic. There are Lutheran Catechism, Anglican Catechism, even Methodist Catechism, not to mention Greek & Russian Orthodoxy

    CB: > ” I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

    A view which is shared by Muslims, Orthodox Jews, the various tribal religions in sub-Saharan,
    Africa; at least nine-in-ten in Nigeria (98%), Senegal (96%), Ghana (96%), Uganda (96%) and Kenya (90%) believe homosexuality should not be accepted by society.

    There is far less acceptance of homosexuality in countries where religion is central to people’s lives – with notable exceptions, however. For example, Russia receives low scores on the religiosity scale, which would suggest higher levels of tolerance for homosexuality. Yet, just 16% of Russians say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

    Wherever God resides, reason and logic are not generally welcome!
    .

  2. NewFederalist

    I have always admired Chuck Baldwin. In 2008 he was the most libertarian nominee in the race. Given that he has been trained at what is now Liberty University (Jerry Falwell’s school) I think he is remarkably well balanced. I may disagree with him on some things but not very much!

  3. Ted R. Weiland

    Chuck Baldwin: “I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does not mean I am against homosexuals having the same civil rights as everyone else, because I believe that ALL Americans enjoy the same protections under the Bill of Rights.”

    Along with homosexuality, murder is identified as a capital crime in God’s Word. Consistency then demands that Pastor Baldwin take the same position with murders that he does with homosexuals–that is, to provide murders (or rapists or anyone else guilty of a capital crime by Yahweh’s standard) the same civil rights as everyone else…. Something is seriously wrong here! This is itself an instance of political correctness.

    By the way, where are civil rights (where are rights period) found in the Bible? The Bible knows nothing of optional rights. It’s replete with non-optional responsibilities.

    This is what comes from pastors who reject Yahweh as absolute sovereign and who look to man-made traditions like the Constitution rather than Yahweh’s moral law as the supreme law of the land.

    For more, see blog article “Open Response to Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s ‘How Christians and Conservatives are Helping to Destroy America’” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/open-response-to-pastor-chuck-baldwins-how-christians-and-conservatives-are-helping-to-destroy-america/.

  4. Cody Quirk

    Yeah, I am glad that idiot Pharisees like Mr. Weiland are a rapidly shrinking fringe in this country; in fact the founding fathers warned fervently of his brand of theocratic sectarianism.

  5. Cody Quirk

    “1. Roman theology has NOTHING in common with Catholicism.”

    I do not mean to offend Catholics here, but it is undeniable that Catholicism contains a significant amount of the old Roman pagan religion in it’s beliefs and practices.

    For one, Jesus was NOT born on December 25th, period.

  6. Dave Terry

    Cody, with all due respect, the date of Jesus’ birth has nada to do with EITHER Roman religion OR Catholicism. They merely opted for the Dec. 25th date because that date was already an established holiday for the latter-day Romans

  7. Ted R. Weiland

    Cody, thanks for responding.

    In light of Matthew 15:6-9 and Christ’s description of Phariseeism, please tell me how it is that I’m fostering Phariseeism by promoting Yahweh as sovereign and His moral law as supreme:

    “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:6-9)

    I wonder if you’re not guilty of Isaiah 5:20 in this instance. According to Christ, a Pharisee is someone who promotes the commandments of men over the commandments of God. For example, the late 18th-century founders making the Yahweh’s moral law subservient to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land:

    “…The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.

    “Regardless what Article 6 claims, Yahweh’s law reigns above all other so-called laws, including the Constitution….

    “Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add “under God” or “under the Bible” to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.

    “If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry….”

    For more, see online Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html.

  8. Cody Quirk

    “Cody, thanks for responding.

    In light of Matthew 15:6-9 and Christ’s description of Phariseeism, please tell me how it is that I’m fostering Phariseeism by promoting Yahweh as sovereign and His moral law as supreme:

    “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:6-9)”

    The verses you just cited describes people like you to the ‘T’. Wanting to make a legal adult’s consensual choice a criminal act that merits the death penalty even is in no way Christ-like, otherwise Jesus would’ve allowed the adulteress in John 8 to be stoned, for one.

    Matthew 7:1-5, however I’ll cite 1-2 alone:
    “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
    -that describes the false self-righteousness of people like you, specifically the Pharisees, which were quick to render their own judgement of people’s characters, personal beliefs, and actions.

    Matthew 23 also describes your kind quite well, especially in verses 25-28:
    “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

    When it comes to such hypocrites like Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, and many others, you guys fit this bill more so then any liberal or Pro-Gay Christian sect.

    Regardless of the sin of Homosexuality, you, and many other Christians have especially forgotten Matthew 18:4-5, Colossians 3:12-13, 2 Timothy 2:24-25 -in your quick condemnation and immediate screams for persecution of those that have, or have had same-sex relations, or committed consensual actions as such.

    Furthermore, John 13:34-35, Romans 12:10, 13:8, Ephesians 5:1-2, 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 1 John 4:7-12 -people like you are in clear violation of these verses, especially in hating the sinner and not the sin alone.

    But most of all, your kind is most guilty of violating Titus 3:1-2: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.”

    Yep, you are certainly undoing yourself here, which brings me to my next point on your argument-

    “I wonder if you’re not guilty of Isaiah 5:20 in this instance. According to Christ, a Pharisee is someone who promotes the commandments of men over the commandments of God. For example, the late 18th-century founders making the Yahweh’s moral law subservient to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land:

    “…The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.

    Regardless what Article 6 claims, Yahweh’s law reigns above all other so-called laws, including the Constitution”

    ONLY in the sense of individual belief and opinion, but when it comes to civil government and legal authority, civil law trumps ‘biblical law’ as long as it is in conformity with the spirit of the First Amendment & religious liberty/freedom of conscience.
    If you do not agree with that, and think that civil law and Yahweh’s law should be joined and used to oppress the rights and freedoms of others, then I will personally oppose you and your kind’s attempts to infringe upon one’s rights and liberties while placing one sect above another in government.
    In fact, should people like you ever take over a government here in this country, on any level, and attempt to enforce your vile theocracy, then I will earnest join up with the political or even armed insurrection that will remove your kind from power in that government.

    Besides the First Amendment, we also have the 9th & 14th Amendments that prohibit the types of Old Testament style judgements and punishments upon the people of the United States.

    We also have these quotes by the founding fathers, which are very clear on the Sectarianism and Theocracy, which fly in the face of the dogmatic, totalitarian notions that you advocate-

    “We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.”

    -George Washington letter to the members of The New Church in Baltimore, January 1793

    “… If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

    -George Washington letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

    -John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

    “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

    -Benjamin Franklin letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

    “…I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

    -Thomas Jefferson letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 1799

    “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”

    -Thomas Jefferson letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787

    “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
    We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”

    -Thomas Jefferson speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

    -James Madison letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

    “[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

    -James Madison letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819

    Here’s another good quote by Madison-

    “Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

    -James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

    This is only a sample, and fortunately a good Christian like Chuck Baldwin has become enlightened and humble enough to know and understand the limitations of “biblical law” when it comes to this country and it’s government.
    Yet your kind doesn’t get it, and dares warp and pervert the ideology of constitutionalism while ignoring the other parts of our nation’s law that limits and/or opposes what you advocate- that being, religious totalitarianism and the usurpation of free agency.

    YOU SIR ARE NO CONSTITUTIONIST!

    REAL Christians uphold God’s law for their own lives and families while respecting and adhering to civil law, as well adhering to the philosophy of ‘live and let live’ and respecting the beliefs and opinion of others at the same time when it comes to missionary work and proclaiming the gospel; because the history of religious fanaticism and it’s cousin- colonialism- has a bloody, dark history when it comes to shoving one’s religion, traditions, and culture down another’s, or even a people’s, throat -therefore spiritually condemning themselves in the afterlife.

    YOU SIR HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DICTATE CIVIL LAW IN GOD’S NAME!
    LORD REBUKE YOU!

    It’s people like you that fuel the raise of atheism/secularism in western society; you are pushing people and the general public in the opposite direction with your blasphemy!

    “If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry….”

    Then you need to move out of the United States immediately, because according to your scum viewpoint- many of the founding fathers of this country and it’s constitution are idolaters, therefore you are being hypocritical living here in abiding by general civil law.

    And by your posting alone here, you have proven that only American Libertarianism is 100% constitutionalist and in conformity with the U.S. Constitution alone.

    Fortunately your kind and fringe unchristian beliefs are dying off, especially your political institutions like the Constitution Party.
    And when such views are extinct all over the world, then so much the better for us, and Christianity in general.

  9. Andy Craig

    “Any attempt to force me to participate in a so-called “marriage” between same sex couples violates my moral conscience and is, by definition, an act of tyranny.”

    I agree. Let me know when it actually ever happens.

    This trumped up nonsense about pastors being forced to marry the homo-gays, isn’t as deserving as half as much credit as some libertarians seem to want to give Baldwin. It’s fact-free fear-mongering and demagoguery, not a principled stand for freedom against a real-world law. His last ditch “but they can call it civil unions so long as we still get to ban them calling it marriage!” position hardly differentiates him from your average Republican in 2015.

    When he talks about getting the church out of the state and out of civil marriages, I’m all with him. When he goes around telling people that my marriage (and that’s the word *I* choose to use for it) is an attack on their church and their pastor and their freedom, it’s pretty difficult to give that a passing grade.

    /insert obligatory also Barr’s-awful, DOMA, etc. comment here

  10. Gene Berkman

    Andy Craig is right, that no Minister, Priest or Rabbi will be forced to officiate at a same sex marriage ceremony. The problem is the invocation of civil rights laws to punish bakers, wedding planners and others who might not want to offer their services to same sex couples.

    I support non-discriminatory marriage, and campaigned against California’s Proposition 8 in 2000, which was a ban on same sex marriage. But people have a right to decline to serve some potential customers, otherwise we have a situation of involuntary servitude.

  11. Andy Craig

    No disagreement there. But that doesn’t apply to clergy and never has. There are pastors right now who won’t marry a black man and a white woman. There are *a lot* of priests, rabbis, etc. who won’t marry people of different faiths, or divorcees. If any of this was a problem with gays, it would already be a problem for all of them. But it isn’t. Which is why it’s such a dishonest argument to make.

  12. Andy Craig

    The one Idaho case he references, was just one local idiot bureaucrat talking out the side of his mouth having no idea what the actual law was. They never even took any action, and both the state and the courts were ready to stomp on the city if they tried it. And even that was only at the margins of whether or not a private wedding chapel was a for-profit business (it was, but that doesn’t matter since they’re still exempt both under the law itself and the 1st Amendment)

  13. langa

    The problem is the invocation of civil rights laws to punish bakers, wedding planners and others who might not want to offer their services to same sex couples.

    It is not only a problem, it is an entirely predictable problem. Government never simply allows anything — it either mandates it or prohibits it, with no middle ground. This is the problem with the “marriage equality” that so many libertarians seem so thrilled by. It is simply another form of “marriage tyranny” that, just like the ban on SSM, treats freedom of association as a farce.

    And please spare me the straw men — opposition to mandating recognition of SSM no more implies support of prohibiting SSM than opposition to the Democrats implies support for the Republicans. It’s quite puzzling to me that so many members of the LP can see through the “lesser of two evils” argument when it comes to elections, but not when it comes to the law.

  14. Andy Craig

    Anti-discrimination laws bear zero relation to marriage laws except in popular imagination. Some of those cases came from states that didn’t have legal SSM at the time. States can and have banned sexual orientation discrimination without having marriage equality, and states can and have had marriage equality without banning sexual orientation discrimination.

    Just because some people wish to conflate the two issues, doesn’t make them correct.

  15. Andy Craig

    If anything, it was bans on discrimination that preceded striking down gay marriage bans. States were passing anti-discim. laws including LGBT as far back as the early 1980s, cities and counties a few years even before that. The first statewide one (four housing & employment) was signed by a Republican here in Wisconsin in 1982. Harvey Milk famously fought for such laws decades before gay marriage was even on the radar.

    If there is any casual relationship whatsoever, it would have to be in the opposite direction as alleged. Not marriage legalization leading to anti-discim. laws, but vice versa. Not that that’s true either. Both are rather correlated with declining opposition to openly gay people, simple as that, whatever you think of the two different laws on libertarian grounds. There’s no reason libertarians can’t make that same distinction.

  16. langa

    Anti-discrimination laws bear zero relation to marriage laws except in popular imagination. Some of those cases came from states that didn’t have legal SSM at the time. States can and have banned sexual orientation discrimination without having marriage equality, and states can and have had marriage equality without banning sexual orientation discrimination.

    What of the case of the business owner who does not wish to discriminate against gay customers in general, but merely wishes to avoid any involvement with gay marriages?

    Of course, anti-discrimination laws should still be opposed by libertarians, regardless of the legal status of SSM, as they still violate freedom of association. But when they are combined with the forced recognition of SSM, their effects are magnified.

  17. Andy Craig

    “What of the case of the business owner who does not wish to discriminate against gay customers in general, but merely wishes to avoid any involvement with gay marriages?”

    What about it? Either the state’s law bans that or it doesn’t. Whether or not the state also issues marriage licenses to gay couples doesn’t matter. You can say that makes the state, among other things, a pretty idiotic hypocrite who is on the wrong side of both issues. I would agree. But that doesn’t support the bans on gay marriage being repealed => anti-discrimination law being enforced more widely contention.

    Anti-discrimination laws (which I’m not arguing support for) ban discrimination based on certain characteristics. So you have race, gender, religion, age, martial status (applies equally to married and unmarried), and in some places sexual orientation. This is, by the way, a very stupid way to go about accomplishing the law’s stated goal of serve-all-comers even if we did agree with them, but that’s a different story. The point is, none of that hinges on who can legally marry each other.

    “But when they are combined with the forced recognition of SSM, their effects are magnified.”

    Except that this simply is not true. There is no such magnification, because there is no such connection. If you’re being prosecuted for violating anti-discrimination laws because you refused to rent a hotel room to a gay couple on their wedding night, the fact that you live in a state that doesn’t recognize civil SSMs will do nothing to help you. Nor will the fact that your state has legalize civil SSM harm you if your state (/city/etc.) doesn’t ban LGBT discrimination in public accommodations.

    This supposed connection is a creature of imagination, not law. It is a complete, 100% fabricated red herring.

  18. Deran

    To me it seems like the logical problem with saying a business owner has a right to not provide their service or product to people of the same sex who are getting married, is that this same logic would make it acceptable for a business owner to not provide their service or sell their product to a person based on their skin color or anything else.

    Also, it always seems to me that when people complain about “political correctness” they are conversely promoting a particular ideology of their own. It seems to me that you could logically reverse the worry abt political correctness, and say that people like Baldwin are seeking their own tyranny of the mind, via in his case, strict adherence to his interpretation of the Christian Bible.

  19. langa

    This supposed connection is a creature of imagination, not law. It is a complete, 100% fabricated red herring.

    Wrong. For example, say that a bed and breakfast offers discounts to newly married couples. Further, say that they wish to restrict this offer to heterosexual couples (homosexual couples, married or not, are welcome as guests, but won’t qualify for the discount). If the state issues SSM licenses, then you can bet your ass that the bed and breakfast will not be legally allowed to deny the discount to newly married gay couples. However, if the state does not issue SSM licenses, then the business does not have to worry about it, as the gay couples would not be legally married, and hence would not qualify for the discount.

    Your argument boils down to the idea that if a particular state already has a law that violates a given right, and then passes another law that causes the first law to be invoked more often, the second law does not constitute a rights violation. To see the flaw in this logic, consider a state that already has a law on the books banning smoking in “public places” (which are defined as government-owned property). They then pass a second law that simply expands the definition of “public place” to include not only government-owned property, but also any privately owned business that’s open to the public. Would you claim that this second law does not violate the rights of smokers, just because it does not specifically mention smoking?

  20. Rob

    Amen Ted Weiland:

    “”
    Chuck Baldwin: “I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does not mean I am against homosexuals having the same civil rights as everyone else, because I believe that ALL Americans enjoy the same protections under the Bill of Rights.”

    Along with homosexuality, murder is identified as a capital crime in God’s Word. Consistency then demands that Pastor Baldwin take the same position with murders that he does with homosexuals–that is, to provide murders (or rapists or anyone else guilty of a capital crime by Yahweh’s standard) the same civil rights as everyone else…. Something is seriously wrong here! This is itself an instance of political correctness.
    “”

    And ALL the sain’t shall Proclaim Amen Amen & Amein

  21. Andy Craig

    “If the state issues SSM licenses….”

    I hate to be repetitive, but this isn’t the case. Either the law in question bans sexual orientation (or in this case, marital status) discrimination or it doesn’t. There is no point in this scenario where either side presents “but the state says it’s a legal marriage!” as a relevant point or counter-point, because it has no effect on the outcome of the case.

    Might be relevant to challenging the law and seeking to have it overturned, if you can argue the state’s hypocrisy doesn’t satisfy the rational basis test, but it isn’t relevant to the actual action of enforcing the anti-discrimination law. Whether or not the couple is legally married in your scenario has precisely no bearing on the outcome (they could offer the same discount to straight couples who don’t get a civil marriage, or not, as they please, and they could likewise have a no-gays policy or not either way). If the allegation is illegal sexual orientation discrimination, then the existence of a civil marriage is irrelevant. If the allegation is marital status discrimination, it’s also irrelevant because that applies equally to both the married and unmarried so it doesn’t matter which the couple legally are.

  22. Andy Craig

    It’s like arguing that Loving v. Virginia made it easier for black people to sue hotels and restaurants for racial discrimination. Which is patently absurd, because that wasn’t the issue at stake in Loving. At most both are part of the same broader cultural trends, but the relationship is not causal.

  23. Mike Shipley

    the whole point of choosing language that refuses to reinforce power imbalances between him human beings is not to control what others say. It’s to make them look like the bigots they are by contrast. by all means Mr Baldwin, go ahead and keep speaking your mind, making your point about freedom of speech, it just makes the Libertarian Party look that much better in comparison. this kind of drivel makes a paleo libertarian look like a social justice worker!

  24. Andy Craig

    It might seem intuitive or even common-sense that the legality of SSM would affect the scope of anti-discrimination law. But intuitive doesn’t mean correct. Conflating the two issues as a reason to oppose SSM legalization, doesn’t hold up on the facts.

  25. Chris

    Chuck Baldwin: “To illustrate: I firmly believe that God has established marriage as being between a man and a woman. That does NOT mean I am against homosexuals having the same civil rights as everyone else, because I believe that ALL Americans enjoy the same protections under the Bill of Rights. Accordingly, all Americans have the right to enter into civil contracts with one another. But civil union is NOT the same as Holy Matrimony, which can be–and has been–defined ONLY by our Creator. Marriage is defined by both divine and Natural Law.”

    This is as double minded as many other statements in your article. “… being double minded, unstable in all his ways.”

    Well, Chuck, Here’s what our Creator has to say about it:

    Leviticus 18: 22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
    Death penalty at vs. 29 & at 20: 13.

    And for the “New Testament Only” crowd: Romans 1: 26 – 32. ” … those who practice such thing are worthy of death, … “.

    And you’re a “Pastor” ??!

    You sound like people who take positions of utter nonsense such as this: “Not everything that is sinful should be a crime.”

    What do you think the word “sin” means ??? 1 John 3: 4. Sin IS a crime by it’s very definition !

    Moreover, the general theme of this entire article, in essence, promotes the acceptance and tolerance for these sexual perverts !

    Call Them What They are:

    And What’s with this calling them “gay” ??!!

    Call them what they are: Sodomites, sexual perverts, etc.   Calling them anything other than what they are, in essence, promotes the acceptance and tolerance for them.

    Promoting acceptance of sodomites and no punishment for their crime as commanded by The Great I Am, is acquiescence thereto !

    If we had obeyed The Great I Am, that became flesh and dwelt among us in the first place, we wouldn’t even see these sodomites as they would not even exist outside of the closet.

    Here’s what He Commands as His plan for His people regarding the sexual pervert problem and the ONLY solution:

    First, there’s the need for the offender to turn back to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us, with Confession of Him as his salvation and Kinsmen Redeemer, repentance and baptism (full immersion) in His name. Acts 2: 38.

    If the sin continues: 1 Corinthians 5: 4-5.

    For those who will not repent: Leviticus 18: 22 – 29; 20: 13.

    The general principle is to rid the land of the evil: “Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.” Deuteronomy 13: 11.   and 17: 7 “So shall you purge the evil from your midst.”

    The only solution for this nation is to turn back to Him, His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, His Kingdom/Will on earth.

  26. Dave Terry

    Chuck Baldwin wrote: “In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated September 23, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    Isn’t it obscenely ironic that Mr. Jefferson would swear his eternal hostility against the tyranny over the mind of man… and does so upon the altar of the greatest perpetrator of tyranny over the minds of men, in history.

  27. Gene Berkman

    I want to express appreciation for the fact that Pastor Baldwin has come to accept domestic partnerships, even if he hesitates before non-discriminatory marriage. Progress, given the reactionary views of so many other Christian conservatives.

  28. langa

    Either the law in question bans sexual orientation (or in this case, marital status) discrimination or it doesn’t. There is no point in this scenario where either side presents “but the state says it’s a legal marriage!” as a relevant point or counter-point, because it has no effect on the outcome of the case.

    I’m not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp. Perhaps if I put it in the form of a one-act play:

    [Gay man walks into bed and breakfast, addressing the owner.]

    Man: Hi. I’d like a room. We’re on our honeymoon, and we saw your sign about discounts for newly married couples.

    B&B Owner: Sure. Where are you and your wife from?

    Man: My husband and I are from upstate.

    Owner: Oh, your husband. I’m sorry. In that case, I’m afraid you don’t qualify for the discount.

    Man: What? Are you some kind of bigot? They have laws against denying service on the basis of sexual orientation, you know. [Starts to reach for cell phone to call lawyer.]

    Owner: Wait, I think you misunderstood me. You and your husband are welcome to stay here. You just don’t qualify for the discount.

    Man: Why not?

    Owner: Because it’s only for newly married couples.

    Man: But we just got married two days ago. Here, I’ll show you. [Pulls out marriage license.]

    Owner: You don’t understand. I don’t recognize same-sex marriages as legitimate.

    Man: But we have a license from the state!

    Owner: That doesn’t matter.

    Man: Oh yeah? We’ll see about that! [Pulls out phone and dials attorney.]

  29. paulie

    Above one act play with slight changes

    [My sister and brother in law walk into bed and breakfast, addressing the owner.]

    Darry’al: Hi. I’d like a room. We’re on our honeymoon, and we saw your sign about discounts for newly married couples.

    B&B Owner: Sure. Where’s your wife?

    Darry’al: Right here.

    Owner: Oh, I’m sorry. In that case, I’m afraid you don’t qualify for the discount.

    Darry’al: What? Are you some kind of bigot? They have laws against denying service to interracial couples, you know. [Starts to reach for cell phone to call lawyer.]

    Owner: Wait, I think you misunderstood me. You and your wife are welcome to stay here. You just don’t qualify for the discount.

    Darry’al: Why not?

    Owner: Because it’s only for same race couples. And no, I don’t mean the human race.

    Darry’al: But we just got married two days ago. Here, I’ll show you. [Pulls out marriage license.]

    Owner: You don’t understand. I don’t recognize interracial marriages as legitimate. Also, it says here that she is a Jew and you are a Christian so even if you were both recognized as white (or black) by the US Census bureau I’m afraid that I would not consider your marriage to be legitimate and you wouldn’t get any discount here. If it was legal, I wouldn’t let you stay here at all, but it’s not, so you can. But no discount.

    Darry’al: But we have a license from the state!

    Owner: That doesn’t matter.

    Darry’al: Oh yeah? We’ll see about that! [Pulls out phone and dials attorney.]


    From the above scenario, we should conclude that libertarians should support outlawing “interracial” and inter-religious marriages (or at least not having the state license them, while continuing to license same-race, same religion marriages) because it could potentially lead to this sort of scenario.

    Right?

    (Yes, yes, I know you don’t want the state to license any marriages at all. But in the meantime, should we advocate for rolling the clock back on Loving vs. Virginia or not?)

  30. langa

    Paulie, I specifically asked you (and everyone else) to stop with the straw man, yet you never hesitate to drag it out. You’re just making the exact same “lesser of two evils” argument that you (and others) rightly excoriate when it comes to elections. How about a little consistency?

    Typical LP “Marriage Equality” Proponent: Well, sure, it would be great if we could get the state out of marriage altogether. But we all know that’s just not politically feasible, so forget about it, and just work toward the “marriage equality” idea, OK?

    Typical “libertarian” GOP Member: Well, sure, the LP has a lot of great ideas, and I would love to see Gary Johnson get elected. But we all know there’s no chance of that happening, so just forget about it, and help us work on getting Rand Paul nominated, OK?

    So, you tell me: What’s the real difference between those arguments?

  31. paulie

    Why is it a straw man? I would love to understand the difference between the two arguments, ie your one act play and mine. It’s a genuine question, not a straw man.

  32. langa

    The straw man is that my position is (in your words):

    …libertarians should support outlawing “interracial” and inter-religious marriages (or at least not having the state license them, while continuing to license same-race, same religion marriages)…

    My actual position is that libertarians should vigorously and unambiguously oppose all state involvement in marriage, even though such a position may not be “politically feasible” (as if all other libertarian positions — such as full legalization of all drugs, zero gun control laws, zero taxation, etc. — are politically feasible). The reason that libertarians should take that position is that it is, you know, the libertarian position. Period.

    If libertarians want to express their personal preference for “marriage equality” over the status quo, they are free to do so, as long as they make clear that the real libertarian position is no government involvement in marriage. By not making this clear, they treat the actual libertarian position as little more than a footnote.

    (By the way, if forced to choose, I would personally prefer “marriage equality” over the status quo, and I suspect the vast majority of libertarians would too. However, that in no way makes “marriage equality” a libertarian position. Similarly, if forced to choose between Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul for President, I would choose Rand, and again, I suspect most other libertarians would, too. But that doesn’t make Rand a libertarian.)

  33. paulie

    By the way, if forced to choose, I would personally prefer “marriage equality” over the status quo

    Sorry, I misunderstood. Your prior posts in this thread made it sound like you believe marriage equality is worse than the status quo, because it could potentially make worse some coercive aspects of anti-discrimination law; I thought it was logical to ask why that doesn’t also apply to some other kinds of marriage equality.

    Regarding your question about lesser evils, I support all kinds of lesser evils and incremental steps all the time. The LP itself (and certainly GJ) is not exactly my utopian goal. After all, in a theoretical libertopia we’d have no need for an LP (or for that matter anything for LP candidates to run for).

    I’d even support the specific lesser evil you mention to some extent. I worked for Ron Paul in the primaries, then the LP in the general, so yes, you can have both (or if you prefer have your gay wedding cake and eat it too). I won’t lift a finger to help Rand Paul, but that’s for reasons that are more complicated than merely being against lesser evil calculations in any and all circumstances, and amply covered in other threads.

  34. Dave Terry

    Deran:> To me it seems like the logical problem with saying a business owner has a right to not provide their service or product to people of the same sex who are getting married, is that this same logic would make it acceptable for a business owner to not provide their service or sell their product to a person based on their skin color or anything else.

    Correct, but I fail to see the problem.

  35. Dave Terry

    CC:> Dave, Can you elaborate on your accusation of tyranny?

    OK, here we have this super-duper divinity who, in only 6 days created the entire universe complete with millions of living species, including all of humanity and then one day he looses
    his temper because our ancestors weren’t sufficiently supplicant and drowns the entire world.

    THEN; after killing millions of people he is STILL pissed off at humanity (although he claims he is upset with us because he LOVES us, and we keep falling short of his expectations):
    [did he ever consider that it was because he did a shitty job of designing us] WHY for “heaven’s”
    sake did he design a being with “FREE WILL” and then expect us not to exercise it.

    He then, as a last resort, comes to earth disguised as homo sapiens and is murdered, saying he did it for US!

    Excuse me G-D, you REALLY need to get a life! Take up surfing or (god-forbid) Politics!
    MIND YOUR OWN FREAK’N BUSINESS AND QUIT PULLING OUR CHAINS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I’m a free man and I DON’T need your interference!

    Dave Terry
    97128

  36. LibertyDave

    I thought that the libertarian position was that an adult persons ability to enter into contracts was unlimited.

    And since marriage is a contract between two people the the libertarian position is that any adult should be able to get married to any other adult who is willing.

    Which means that the libertarian position is to support gay marriage regardless of weather the government is involved or not.

  37. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Gene Berkman: “I support non-discriminatory marriage, and campaigned against California’s Proposition 8 in 2000, which was a ban on same sex marriage.”

    Prop 8 was on the ballot in 2008, not 2000.

    Prop 22, a previous anti-gay marriage prop, was on the ballot in 2000.

  38. langa

    I thought that the libertarian position was that an adult persons ability to enter into contracts was unlimited.

    Only if the contract does not involve aggression. For example, hiring a hit man is clearly not OK by libertarian standards.

    And since marriage is a contract between two people the the libertarian position is that any adult should be able to get married to any other adult who is willing.

    Correct.

    Which means that the libertarian position is to support gay marriage regardless of weather the government is involved or not.

    Incorrect. While any two people are free to enter into a contract with one another, they are not free to compel third parties to recognize the validity of said contract, which is what government sanctioned marriage does. (Incidentally, this applies just as much to straight marriage as it does to gay marriage. No one should be forced to recognize the validity of any marriage.)

  39. AndyCraig

    Libertarians also don’t support concealed carry permits. After all we’d all prefer constitutional carry, right? In some states the permit even comes with imposition on third parties (which it’s debatable if marriage laws actually do)

    Yet if there was a proposal to a repeal a law that banned, let’s say, left-handed people from getting a conceal carry permit, would libertarians really oppose that as “expanding permits”? Some might, but it would be a distinctly minority position. Certainly nothing that makes it “the” libertarian position, and it certainly isn’t clear that people who would support the repeal would somehow advocating a non-libertarian position. I can think of no other field, where the fact of a government license existing is invoked by libertarians as a reason to deny the license to a certain category of people. We don’t likewise castigate people for getting a business license or building permit, even though we don’t support those existing either.

    “Get the state out of marriage” is not an incorrect answer, but it’s an incomplete answer because that isn’t on the table (and no, none of those bills that would tinker with the how the paperwork process works would really do it either.) It’s like insisting on private schools in response to Brown v. Board. You’re not wrong, you’re just missing the point.

  40. AndyCraig

    “No one should be forced to recognize the validity of any marriage.”

    In a limited sense you should, just like any other contract. If I inherit a piece of property, you have to abide by that. If I’ve been granted medical decision-making authority and you’re the hospital, you have to abide by that. Not because anybody is being forced to accept a marriage in some religious sense- you can keep your personal opinion of it until the cows come home- but because these are real, legitimate property rights at stake that have been legitimately assigned by voluntary contract. Nullifying and violating those, would itself be an act of aggression, and that’s what the state has been doing.

  41. Jed Ziggler

    “Similarly, if forced to choose between Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul for President, I would choose Rand, and again, I suspect most other libertarians would, too.”

    Actually, if forced to choose between Hilldawg, Bush 3, and Randal, It would be a very difficult choice between voting for Hilldawg & committing suicide. I’m not sure which, but I’m currently leaning toward suicide.

  42. AndyCraig

    “Man: But we have a license from the state!

    Owner: That doesn’t matter.

    Man: Oh yeah? We’ll see about that! [Pulls out phone and dials attorney.]”

    At which point the attorney tells him the owner was correct on that point, but it doesn’t have any bearing on the potential anti-discrimination claim.

  43. Dave Terry

    Jed Ziggler wrote: ““Similarly, if forced to choose between Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul for President, I would choose Rand, and again, I suspect most other libertarians would, too.”

    Is it your opinion that “most other libertarians” would prefer to vote for any of the above, rather than the ACTUAL “Libertarian” candidate?

  44. langa

    Yet if there was a proposal to a repeal a law that banned, let’s say, left-handed people from getting a conceal carry permit, would libertarians really oppose that as “expanding permits”? Some might, but it would be a distinctly minority position. Certainly nothing that makes it “the” libertarian position, and it certainly isn’t clear that people who would support the repeal would somehow advocating a non-libertarian position. I can think of no other field, where the fact of a government license existing is invoked by libertarians as a reason to deny the license to a certain category of people. We don’t likewise castigate people for getting a business license or building permit, even though we don’t support those existing either.

    Nothing but one straw man after another. For the thousandth time, I am NOT arguing that “marriage equality” is worse than the status quo. In fact, I have already said that, in my opinion, it’s better. But that is just my personal opinion, and it has nothing to do with being a libertarian. This reminds me of those silly debates about whether an income tax or a sales tax is a “more libertarian” policy. The obvious answer is that neither of them is at all libertarian. That doesn’t mean that libertarians can’t have a personal preference for one or the other. It just means that preference is based on something other than libertarianism. The same is true with the marriage issue. Libertarians can have whatever personal opinion of it they want, but if that opinion is anything other than “there should be no government involvement in marriage”, then that opinion is not a part of libertarianism (though it may be compatible with libertarianism, just as veganism is compatible with libertarianism, but veganism is not a part of libertarianism).

  45. langa

    In a limited sense you should, just like any other contract.

    People can sign whatever contract they want, but from a libertarian standpoint, that contract is not legally binding on anyone who did not sign it. In other words, it can’t impose any obligation on any third party. This is the basis of the libertarian opposition to the type of limited liability that is often claimed by corporations.

    If I inherit a piece of property, you have to abide by that.

    I’m not sure if I agree with this or not, because I don’t know who “you” is referring to.

    If I’ve been granted medical decision-making authority and you’re the hospital, you have to abide by that.

    I disagree. I don’t see why each hospital shouldn’t be free to establish their own policy on that. Anyone who doesn’t like it is free to use a different hospital.

  46. langa

    At which point the attorney tells him the owner was correct on that point, but it doesn’t have any bearing on the potential anti-discrimination claim.

    Are you really claiming that, in states that have legalized SSM, people are still free to refuse to recognize the validity of the government marriage license? If that were true, what would be the point of even having the license in the first place?

  47. langa

    Jed Ziggler wrote: ““Similarly, if forced to choose between Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul for President, I would choose Rand, and again, I suspect most other libertarians would, too.”

    Is it your opinion that “most other libertarians” would prefer to vote for any of the above, rather than the ACTUAL “Libertarian” candidate?

    Actually, I’m the one who wrote that, and my opinion is just the opposite. In fact, that was my whole point — that just because someone (or some law) is the lesser of two (or, in this case, three) evils, that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable from a libertarian standpoint.

    The LP is supposed to be the Party of Principle, not the Party of Political Feasibility.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    L: In fact, that was my whole point — that just because someone (or some law) is the lesser of two (or, in this case, three) evils, that doesn’t mean it’s acceptable from a libertarian standpoint.

    me: One way to look at the world, ie, good and evil.

    Another is to consider whether any particular option is progress toward one’s goals, and whether other options are steps away from one’s goals.

    It’s easy to say that one consider Bush, Clinton and RP2 are “evil” and all are “unacceptable.”

    One COULD say that all 3 represent the “wrong” direction. Or some, like me, might say that RP2 could represent progress in the “right” direction.

    And it might feel good to just cling to a plumbline with no interest in process, and thereby maintain continuing irrelevance.

  49. LibertyDave

    It is so sad to see people try to use libertarian philosophy to try and justify their prejudice.

    First you said that people have a right to contract as long as it doesn’t involve aggression. Then you say it is all right to be aggressive against others who have entered into contracts that don’t harm anyone. By claiming that a contract that harms no one is not valid, you are interfering with their right to contract. This is a form of aggression, and is against the philosophy of liberty.

  50. langa

    One COULD say that all 3 represent the “wrong” direction. Or some, like me, might say that RP2 could represent progress in the “right” direction.

    That depends on which Rand Paul you are talking about. If you’re talking about the Rand Paul of a few years ago, he probably would be a step (albeit a small step) in the right direction. On the other hand, if you’re talking about the new, socially conservative, hawkish Rand Paul of the last couple of years, he’s basically just another typical Republican, which is certainly not a step in the right direction.

  51. langa

    It is so sad to see people try to use libertarian philosophy to try and justify their prejudice.

    If you’re talking about me, then you should go back and reread what I actually wrote, rather than what you imagine me to have written. I haven’t expressed a single prejudiced opinion. Rather, I have merely defended the right to be prejudiced, which is a totally different claim.

    …you say it is all right to be aggressive against others who have entered into contracts that don’t harm anyone.

    Where on earth did I say anything similar to that? Maybe you should change your moniker to ConfusionDave.

  52. LibertyDave

    langa

    I made the statement; “Which means that the libertarian position is to support gay marriage regardless of whether the government is involved or not.”

    Your response was; “Incorrect. While any two people are free to enter into a contract with one another, they are not free to compel third parties to recognize the validity of said contract, which is what government sanctioned marriage does. (Incidentally, this applies just as much to straight marriage as it does to gay marriage. No one should be forced to recognize the validity of any marriage.)”

    Just because I support gay marriage doesn’t mean I am forcing anyone else to support gay marriage. You on the other hand are saying that by me supporting something that I am forcing others to support it. That is just flat wrong.

    The reason the libertarian position is to support gay marriage is that marriage is a contract that harms no one.

    By supporting people who use prejudice to deny the validity of this contract you are helping these people aggress against those in said contract.

    By saying that it is ok for people to deny the validity of a contract that harms no one, it is like saying that it is ok for people to lie because we have freedom of speech. Just because we have the right to lie does not make it ok to lie.

  53. langa

    This has to be the most convoluted reasoning I have ever heard. I hardly know where to start.

    Just because I support gay marriage doesn’t mean I am forcing anyone else to support gay marriage. You on the other hand are saying that by me supporting something that I am forcing others to support it. That is just flat wrong.

    Government mandated marriage contracts must be recognized as valid, under penalty of law. Therefore, if you support government sanctioned gay marriage, then yes, by definition, you are forcing others to support it. In other words, you are supporting a contract between two parties that is legally binding on third parties. Forcing someone to abide by an agreement that they never consented to (as in the bed and breakfast example I gave) is a clear case of aggression.

    The reason the libertarian position is to support gay marriage is that marriage is a contract that harms no one.

    Again, the libertarian position is that a contract is only binding on those who signed it. If that contract is used to compel a third party (as government marriage licenses are), it’s aggression.

    By supporting people who use prejudice to deny the validity of this contract you are helping these people aggress against those in said contract.

    First, I’m not “supporting” these people, any more than a free speech advocate is “supporting” the KKK. Second, even if I was, that has absolutely nothing to do with aggression. There is no right to impose obligations on others.

    By saying that it is ok for people to deny the validity of a contract that harms no one, it is like saying that it is ok for people to lie because we have freedom of speech. Just because we have the right to lie does not make it ok to lie.

    Where did I say it was “OK” for anyone to do anything? I said that no one can be legitimately bound to honor a contract that they never signed. If you disagree, I don’t know what else to say, except that you are obviously not a libertarian.

  54. LibertyDave

    langa

    I never said I support marriage licensing, I said I support marriage contracts.

    If you want to know my stance on licensing laws, they are laws that were passed to keep people of color and the poor in their place and were sold to us using the lie that they will keep us safer. The same goes for zoning laws.

    I in no way, shape, or form support any licensing or zoning laws.

    The problem is that after licensing and zoning laws were passed. Instead of pressuring to have them repealed, people bought the safety lie and created anti-discrimination laws.

    As long as government is interfering in business by saying who can go into business, we will have anti-discrimination laws to make up for the interfering. Advocating allowing people to discriminate because you are against licensing laws will only make you look like a bigot. Which is what your statement below makes you look like.

    “Government mandated marriage contracts must be recognized as valid, under penalty of law. Therefore, if you support government sanctioned gay marriage, then yes, by definition, you are forcing others to support it. In other words, you are supporting a contract between two parties that is legally binding on third parties. Forcing someone to abide by an agreement that they never consented to (as in the bed and breakfast example I gave) is a clear case of aggression.”

    All of your other statements in the same post make the same mistaken assumption that I support licensing laws.

    If you want to advocate against marriage license laws then please come up with an argument that follows the philosophy of liberty without making it look like you approve of bigotry.

  55. langa

    If you want to advocate against marriage license laws then please come up with an argument that follows the philosophy of liberty without making it look like you approve of bigotry.

    Your whole argument is based on the absurdly simple-minded notion that saying that someone should be allowed to do X means that you “approve” of X. For example, if you support freedom of speech for the KKK, does that mean you therefore “approve” of everything they might say?

    Of course I think people should be free to discriminate. But that’s not because I “approve” of discrimination. It’s because I support the basic libertarian principle of freedom of association.

  56. LibertyDave

    langa

    If you want to learn to communicate better you need to understand that how you say something can imply something you didn’t intend to.

    Three other people, Andy Craig, Deran, and Paulie tried to point this out to you but you keep going on about, “And please spare me the straw men” and weren’t actually listening to what they were saying.

    So I jump in using different arguments to show you that the way you were going on against gay marriage licensing was making it look like you were approving of discrimination.

    People, when standing up for freedom of speech without sounding like they approve of hate speech, might say; “I don’t approve of what they are saying but I will defend their right to say it.”

    I will leave it up to you to come up with a similar way to defend freedom of association without it sounding like you approve of discrimination.

  57. langa

    I will leave it up to you to come up with a similar way to defend freedom of association without it sounding like you approve of discrimination.

    If I were speaking to the general public, such caveats might be necessary. However, when I am addressing self-proclaimed “libertarians” such as yourself, I do expect them to have at least a basic understanding of fundamental libertarian principles.

    In other words, the problem lies not in my ability to communicate, but rather, in your insistence that you are an adherent of a philosophy which you clearly do not even understand.

    Now, if you will excuse me, providing you with remedial lessons in libertarianism is starting to grow rather tedious. If you need any more tutorials, I suggest a search engine.

  58. Robert Capozzi

    L: That depends on which Rand Paul you are talking about.

    me: Yes, great point. I did say he “could” be a step in the right direction. I doubt he’ll get the nomination, so I won’t have to waste headspace deciding whether I would vote for the first R in my life.

    Many L candidates do not represent “steps” at all, but massive leaps into the unknown. The State is a cruise ship, not a speedboat, so what many/most Ls advocate lacks credibility.

    Most unfortunate, as the sentiment is so positive.

  59. robert capozzi

    PF, Heaven help us not. A precipitous abolition of the State, despite its many warts, seems far more dysfunctional than even the current configuration. The prospect of thousands of years of radioactive oceans is a most disturbing prospect, yes?

  60. paulie

    Well, yes. But thinking it’s indestructible, ignoring all precautions and leaving the band to play on even as it sinks may also be somewhat ill advised. Perhaps it would be good to have plenty of lifeboats and evacuation plans on hand, etc.

  61. Andy Craig

    CC was relatively well-designed but run aground by idiots, and saved from worse disaster only by a combination of its built-in redundancies, spontaneous mutual aid, and sheer dumb luck. Also the guy in charge is insanely criminal and attempted to hastily flee the disaster he had created, which only made things worse.

    Sounds more like the collapse of a state to me.

  62. LibertyDave

    langa

    You said; “If I were speaking to the general public, such caveats might be necessary. However, when I am addressing self-proclaimed “libertarians” such as yourself, I do expect them to have at least a basic understanding of fundamental libertarian principles.”

    For the first part this is a public forum and people who are not libertarian can read what you say.

    For the second part it is you who has a problem with fundamental libertarian principles. In your example of the bed and breakfast you gave above the owner committed fraud when he advertised a discount and then didn’t honor the discount. And you saying that committing fraud is ok because we have the freedom of association is bullshit and also against fundamental libertarian principles.

    If I lie to take your money, it is stealing just like if I snuck into you house to steal. It doesn’t matter if you believe the lie to be the truth, it is still a lie.

  63. langa

    In your example of the bed and breakfast you gave above the owner committed fraud when he advertised a discount and then didn’t honor the discount. And you saying that committing fraud is ok because we have the freedom of association is bullshit and also against fundamental libertarian principles.

    Dude, you really need some sort of primer on freedom of association, and apparently on the concept of property rights, as well. In the example, he owns the business. That means he can choose to refuse service to anyone he wants, for whatever reason he wants. If he is not free to do so, he is a slave. The same principle applies to the discount. It’s his business, so he gets to decide who is eligible for the discount and who is not.

    If I lie to take your money, it is stealing just like if I snuck into you house to steal.

    Except that he didn’t take the guy’s money. He informed him up front that he was not eligible for the discount. There’s nothing fraudulent about that. If he had told the guy that he would get the discount, and then tried to charge him full price after the fact, then that would be fraud.

  64. LibertyDave

    So in your libertarian world are contracts meaningless because if you are not allowed to do what ever you want when you want regardless of who you hurt, then you are a slave?

    Contracts come in many forms including written and verbal. When you advertise a deal, you are telling people that you will do something in exchange for getting there business. When people make plans based on your advertisement and you don’t honor the advertised deal because you are a bigot then you are responsible for any damages you may have caused whether you collected any money or not.

    Along with rights come responsibilities.

  65. Joshua Katz

    There seems to be an implicit plea here to be allowed to use words contrary to their widely-accepted definitions. It doesn’t strike me as tyrannical to share a common language. If I display a sign saying “married couples get a discount” we’d have to look to the meaning of ‘married’ to decide who is supposed to get that discount. In our society, as it stands, we look to the state for that definition. The state is not invading the hotel and demanding a discount on behalf of married people, it is just providing the meaning of the term. You can’t use a secret language – if you wish to use an idiosyncratic one, you need to make that clear upfront. For instance, the sign could say “married couples get a discount – and, by the way, by married I mean heterosexual couples married in a Catholic Church, you heathens.” Then the gay couple doesn’t get the discount. But if you say all married couples, then deny it to a couple recognized as married, you’ve failed to live up to your own advertising.

    In a sense, the state has preempted any other form of social organization. You may not like that (by the way, I don’t identify myself as an anarchist anymore) but its still a reality to deal with. As RC suggested, you can’t just, without context, rip out what social organization it does provide, when it has been stopping any other from developing. A city is not better off without a fire department than with one, usually, even if that department is currently public (or, worse, a private monopoly.)

    I mean, think about it. Suppose the married couples example worked. What if my particular view of marriage, rather than limiting it to heterosexual couples, instead involves the couple walking in the door on all fours. Any couple that walks in the door standing up, the first time they enter, is, ipso facto, not a married couple.

    I suppose you can say that’s fine, too, and I’m still not committing fraud, but let’s look at it more carefully. Maybe a newly married couple called around looking for the best hotel rate. Maybe I required that they give a credit card at reservation, and intend to charge them the full rate even if they don’t stay. Now, down the road, is a hotel that costs $200/night. My rate is $250, but my discounted rate is $150. They called, inquired, even asked if there’s any special limitations, and I said no, any newly married couple gets the discount. (And I meant it – by my meaning of words!) Do you really want to claim I haven’t misled this couple when I take their $250? Are you saying I have not harmed them, in some actionable way, by leading them to think my hotel was cheaper than the one down the road?

    You can strip away the credit card details. If you think I’ve done harm there, then I’ve still done harm with those removed. It will be less harm if I tell you when you show up that you aren’t getting the discount, and let you cancel, but it’s still harm. If nothing else, wouldn’t I have to repay you for the wasted gas? So give me some sense of where the line is: does my ‘crawling in the door’ definition of marriage work too, or only if my idiosyncratic definition is based on orientation?

    Then again, it seems reasonable to expect both sides of a transaction to have equal rights. Do my customers get to define marriage for the sake of my contract, also?

  66. langa

    Contracts come in many forms including written and verbal. When you advertise a deal, you are telling people that you will do something in exchange for getting there business. When people make plans based on your advertisement and you don’t honor the advertised deal because you are a bigot then you are responsible for any damages you may have caused whether you collected any money or not.

    This is ridiculous. Other people are not responsible for whether your plans come to fruition or not. Imagine that you have planned to stay at the hotel for the discounted rate, get there, and then discover that there are no vacancies. Now, your plans are ruined. Does that mean that the hotel is responsible, and must compensate you, just because you were careless in making your plans?

    Or imagine that you see a sign advertising loans “even for people with bad credit” and decide that you would like to get one of those loans and start your own business. So, before checking with the loan company, you quit your job, only to find out that the loan company’s definition of “bad credit” differs from yours. You are now unemployed. Is that the loan company’s fault, or is it yours?

  67. langa

    For instance, the sign could say “married couples get a discount – and, by the way, by married I mean heterosexual couples married in a Catholic Church, you heathens.” Then the gay couple doesn’t get the discount.

    If it makes you happier, then feel free to change my example to include that caveat. It doesn’t change my original point. Offering a discount only for straight couples would still be legal in a state without gay marriage, and illegal in state with gay marriage. Your argument about the state getting to provide the definition of the term was the whole point of my example.

    They called, inquired, even asked if there’s any special limitations, and I said no, any newly married couple gets the discount. (And I meant it – by my meaning of words!) Do you really want to claim I haven’t misled this couple when I take their $250? Are you saying I have not harmed them, in some actionable way, by leading them to think my hotel was cheaper than the one down the road?

    This is a completely different situation. In your example, there has been an explicit agreement, rather than simply an advertisement, and more importantly, you have intentionally misled them. They have done their due diligence, and have still been misled. This is much different than simply seeing an advertisement, with a vague claim about “newly married couples” (which, by the way, didn’t even specify what “newly married” meant), assuming that it meant exactly what you wanted it to, and then treating it as a binding contract. You really can’t understand that?

    It will be less harm if I tell you when you show up that you aren’t getting the discount, and let you cancel, but it’s still harm. If nothing else, wouldn’t I have to repay you for the wasted gas?

    Again, there’s harm in your example because there was an explicit agreement, and that was predicated on a misleading answer to a question. In my example, there was no agreement at all, and there was no attempt to mislead. There was just an (admittedly vague) advertisement. Do you think that, for example, advertising a deal as “for a limited time only” means that you have to offer it for as long as the customer imagines, or else it’s fraud?

    Then again, it seems reasonable to expect both sides of a transaction to have equal rights. Do my customers get to define marriage for the sake of my contract, also?

    Both sides have to agree on a definition, or else there is no transaction. Isn’t that obvious?

  68. Joshua Katz

    I do agree that offering a discount to straight couples only, in a state with gay marriage, is legal – so long as you don’t claim to do something different. But somehow you think that a sign with an unqualified “discount for married couples” doesn’t claim to do something different, because of the mental states of the owner. So, no, I don’t think it’s obvious.

    I also disagree with your distinction between the two examples. All I did was reiterate what the sign said. The sign says “discounts for married couples.” I said “yes, we have a discount for all married couples.” Why is mine misleading, and yours perfectly fine?

    What I can understand (not all disagreements arise from failure of understanding, by the way) is that you don’t get to claim to offer X, then say “no, I meant Y, in my own language, which you couldn’t possible have access to.”

    And yes, your point was you don’t want the state getting to define the terms. I responded as to why I think it’s unavoidable. Your response seems to be “but I don’t want the state to define the terms.” I don’t find that convincing.

    Regarding ‘for a limited time’ there is no general social consensus as to the length of time involved. If there were, then yes, I’d expect it to last that long.

  69. AndyCraig

    ” Offering a discount only for straight couples would still be legal in a state without gay marriage, and illegal in state with gay marriage”

    You can repeat this as many times as you want. It still isn’t true, and I challenge you to find me a single lawyer practicing in the field who will say it is.

  70. langa

    Why is mine misleading, and yours perfectly fine?

    Because you were specifically asked if there were any exceptions, and you said no. That is obviously an attempt to mislead. But again, all this is really beside the point. Even if I concede what you are saying, it just proves that I originally worded my hypothetical poorly. By slightly modifying the hypothetical, my original point has now been validated all the same.

    Regarding ‘for a limited time’ there is no general social consensus as to the length of time involved. If there were, then yes, I’d expect it to last that long.

    Two things: First, are you saying there is currently a “general social consensus” as to the definition of marriage? It seems to me that there is a huge debate taking place about this very subject.

    Second, this contradicts your claim above that government has to define terms, in order to avoid rampant fraud. The phrase “for a limited time” has been used in advertising for as long as I can remember (at least 30 years). It’s a very vague phrase and, by your own admission, there is no consensus as to what it means. Yet I have never heard anyone claim that the use of this phrase, or the lack of a government-enforced definition of it, constitutes fraud. Why not?

  71. langa

    You can repeat this as many times as you want. It still isn’t true, and I challenge you to find me a single lawyer practicing in the field who will say it is.

    Go back to my original (unmodified) example. The sign says “50% discount for newly married couples” — no ifs, no ands, no buts. Assume that this is in a state where SSM is illegal. The owner has effectively excluded gay couples from the discount, as they are not legally married.

    Now, imagine that this same state legalizes SSM. The owner leaves the sign up, worded exactly as before. The day before the new law (legalizing SSM) goes into effect, he can exclude gay couples. The day after the law goes into effect, he can’t, since they are now legally married.

    And speaking of repeating things, I will ask you once again, if your claim is that anyone is free to disregard government marriage licenses, what is the point of having them? The people who are pushing so hard to get government-recognized SSM want to do so precisely so that their claim to be married can’t be ignored. You gave an example of that yourself with the hospital.

  72. Joshua Katz

    It wouldn’t break the analogy if I said there were no exceptions, and I then refused to give a discount to a farmer who showed up to get a room for his two newly married giraffes. According to you, that’s not all that different from what’s going on here. You think I was intentionally being misleading – I think your sign is doing exactly the same thing. This is exactly why private definitions aren’t reliable.

    In response to your point – I don’t think that government has to define terms. I think that where government, has in fact, done so, the government defined term is the one that can reasonably be expected to apply. When government has not stepped in – as in ‘for a limited time’ either there is a social consensus, or there isn’t. If there isn’t, the term really lacks meaning. If there is, then that’s the meaning when it appears in a contract.

    If I suggested earlier that terms must be defined by government, I apologize. What I meant to say was that, where government has, in fact, defined a term, and that definition has become the accepted one, that’s the one we expect it to mean when we contract. So, when it comes to ‘for a limited time’ no one claims that there’s fraud precisely because there’s no unifying definition – neither by social consensus nor by government.

    It’s true, of course, that the ‘right’ meaning of marriage is not clear socially. But since government has essentially taken it over, we do have a definition we can expect everyone to accept in legal settings.

    Now, as to why the meaning of the sign changes overnight, I’ve actually heard a few good lectures on this lately. The theory that seems most reasonable to me is social signaling – that one of the functions of law is to tell people what other people believe. When we make something illegal, the deterrent effect, according to this theory, isn’t entirely the fear of punishment, although that’s part of it. There’s another part that comes from people saying “Oh, I didn’t realize that society at large was against this thing. Now I do.” That assumes some sort of legitimacy that you’re likely unwilling to give (as am I) but all it requires is that most people do give that legitimacy, which I think is the case.

  73. AndyCraig

    I already explained it. People can use their own definition of marriage. They do all the time. Go ask to rent your local Catholic Church to host a Hindu wedding and see what response you get.

    Whether or not certain actions are prohibited by anti-discrimination law does not hinge, in any context, on whether or not the couple has a civil marriage. Your assertion about the immediate impact of SSM legalization on that scenario, is flat-out not true. That’s not how those laws work, it’s not how their written, it’s not how they’re applied. The sign in question in your scenario would not magically become illegal that same day, nor would there be any obligation for the owner to change his policy (except insofar as he’s holding out false advertising, but that’s a different question. He could slap an asterisk with a no gays on his sign, if that’s the problem.)

    Now, there are certain *individual rights* which are assigned by a marriage that have to be respected. So with regard to a hospital, no they can’t nullify my ability to make decisions for my comatose partner and unilaterally appoint a priest to make those decisions instead. In other words they can’t commit an act of aggression. That’s the sort of thing that yes, other people can’t nullify or violate. That’s freedom of contract and property rights 101. If somebody voluntarily agreed to that, sure, in theory- but not with the contractual voluntary relationship with hospitals and doctors that people actually engage in.

    If somebody *voluntarily offers benefits to married couples* and they want to exclude same-sex married couples (or inter-faith or inter-racial or whatever else), that may or may not be legal. I’m not saying that it is, because in many places and circumstances it isn’t. Nor am I saying that it should be illegal. What I’m saying is whether or not the couple has a civil marriage license, does not affect it one iota in either direction.

    In your scenario, the motel owner might be prosecuted for sexual orientation discrimination, if that’s illegal as applied to his business in his location. Likewise marital status discrimination. Possibly plain old sex/gender discrimination (you can’t really have sexual orientation discrimination without sex discrimination). There are states where that is true that do not have SSM, and there are states where it would be perfectly legal that do have SSM. If the mythical relationship between these two different laws which you think exists really was there, that couldn’t be the case.

  74. Robert Capozzi

    pf: But thinking it’s indestructible, ignoring all precautions and leaving the band to play on even as it sinks may also be somewhat ill advised. Perhaps it would be good to have plenty of lifeboats and evacuation plans on hand, etc.

    me: More than “somewhat” ill advised, I’d suggest. Paranoia is probably also contra-indicated.

  75. paulie

    Help foster replacement mechanisms that can fulfill various functions of the state through voluntary/cooperative means, parallel to the state at first and then replacing it if and when possible or necessary. Help spread awareness of such plausible alternatives. Most of my energy, however, is still focused on the larger funnel from which people open their minds at first to smaller government and then through being immersed in the movement for liberty some of them open up their minds to the possibility of a working all-voluntary society. Although the mechanisms I work in most directly are designed to work within the state to minimize its harm, they also create an opening by which more people are pointed in the direction of considering voluntary alternatives. I believe we’ll reach a critical mass/tipping point sometime in the next few years to decades, most likely while many people reading here are alive, but if it takes longer – that’s OK too. And if the state collapses in a haphazard way, which is far from ideal, having more people with knowledge/understanding of building up peaceful alternatives may prove crcuial to managing what happens after that. So, althouh it may seem counterintuitive, my political work is a big part of my exit strategy.

    If you mean my personal exit strategy in the event of a near-term catastrophic collapse, I’m probably not among the people who will be best equipped to handle that well. I suspect that a lot of people will die, most likely including me, but I’ve turned out to be more resilient than I expected too many times to count, so maybe I’ll survive somehow in such a scenario, although I don’t know how off hand.

  76. paulie

    I meant more universal exit strategies. What happens to me personally isn’t very important except to me and a small handful of people. If someone pointed out the fallacy in thinking the Titanic was indestructible the reply shouldn’t have focused on how long that person can swim in ice water.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    pf, got both yer meanings, more or less.

    Aside from metaphysical absolutes, absolutism in both the physical world and in the social sciences doesn’t work. Clearly the Titanic was not indestructible.

    Regimes certainly aren’t either, When regimes fall, though, they have so far been replaced by a different regime.

    Smashing the State and replacing it with nothing has a certain appeal, but thus far it has proved to be illusory. COULD it happen?

    Never say never.

  78. paulie

    We’ve been over this before, too many times, so I’m not sure what the value of repetition is. It’s a matter of when, not if, and I see when as sooner than most people dare dream….within the lifetimes of most people reading. I’m OK with you not agreeing with me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *